BNP Members vote to allow non-whites to join

[Tash.]

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/8514736.stm


The British National Party has voted to scrap its whites-only membership rules after an extraordinary general meeting.

Members who had gathered in Essex voted to amend the party's constitution to let black and Asian people join.

The BNP had been threatened with a possible court injunction over its whites-only membership policy by the Equality and Human Rights Commission.

The party must now go back to court in March when a judge will decide if the new rules meet race relation laws.

It is thought the BNP has removed references to "indigenous British" people, paving the way for black and Asian people to be admitted to the party for the first time.

'Legal reality'

But a BNP spokesman said he could not comment on the precise wording of the new rules until they had been seen by Equality and Human Rights Commission (EHRC) lawyers.

Anti-fascist group Searchlight said the membership rule change was "a meaningless gesture", adding that "no-one seriously believes that thousands of black and Asian Britons will now be queuing up to join Nick Griffin's party".

A spokesman for the group said: "The BNP are as racist and extremist as ever."

BNP leader Nick Griffin told the BBC News Channel: "We had to do it (change the constitution) for legal reasons. Many of our members think it's a good thing.

"A lot of people said we should have done it some time ago but that's really by the by.

"Our problem with this is a government funded, taxpayer-funded quango telling people who they can and can't associate with, [which] is a fundamental outrage.

"Nevertheless, we recognise legal reality, so we have done it and now, for one thing, they can't call us racist any more."

Mr Griffin also defended the forcible expulsion of a newspaper journalist from Sunday's meeting, saying the paper had previously written "lies" about the BNP.

The expulsion took place before the result of the vote was announced as Times journalist Dominic Kennedy was bundled out of the venue by BNP security guards.

Mr Kennedy said he had been invited to the meeting by party officials, but on arrival had been confronted by senior BNP member Richard Barnbrook, who is also a London Assembly member.

Mr Kennedy told the BBC News website "A number of BNP security people shoved me out of the room. I was hit in the back and had my nose grabbed."

He said he had not been hurt in the incident.

'Indigenous' Britons

Asked on the BBC News channel how the BNP could expect to be seen as a normal political party in the light of its behaviour towards a journalist, Mr Griffin said Mr Kennedy had been ejected because of Times "lies" about his party.

Nick Griffin: "We recognise legal reality... they can't call us racist anymore"

"He refused to leave when he was asked so he had to be encouraged to leave," said Mr Griffin.

He added: "We will carry on throwing The Times out until they report the truth. That's all we ask."

Mr Griffin and his party must now wait until next month to learn whether the changes to its rules will enable it to escape a court injunction.

The Equality and Human Rights Commission (EHRC) had threatened the injunction against the BNP unless it changed rules limiting membership to "indigenous British" people.

However at a Central London County Court hearing last month, there were questions over whether amendments proposed to the party's constitution would go far enough to satisfy lawyers from the EHRC.

'Major obstacle'

On Sunday, the EHCR said it had not seen the changes to the party's membership rules but hoped that it was "no longer discriminatory".

An EHCR spokeswoman said: "We're expecting to see a copy of the policy on Tuesday, which is the deadline set by the court.

"When we've received this we will consider our position ahead of the next court hearing on 9th March."

BNP deputy leader Simon Darby said further changes had been made since the court hearing and the party now believed it had overcome the "major obstacle that has stopped us from complying with the law".

The section of the constitution that could viewed as discriminatory against potential ethnic minority members had been removed, he told BBC News.

But he said he could not comment on the precise wording until it had been seen by EHRC lawyers, which would happen within the next seven days.

He said Mr Griffin had the authority to make further minor changes to the wording if the EHRC was not satisfied.

So.. anybody who isn't white suddenly feel like joining? Blatantly done only to make the party legal, not because they actually feel that non-white people have the right to join. I think it's pathetic, they're the same party, same views, same deplorable attitude to anyone different to them.

Thoughts?

[Seatherny]

I remember us two talking about why they arent allowed a few months ago.
I am surprised they didnt just change the name of the party and start again. They must be so unhappy about having to allow them in.

[Catzsy]

I remember us two talking about why they arent allowed a few months ago.
I am surprised they didnt just change the name of the party and start again. They must be so unhappy about having to allow them in.

I think we should wait to see the actual wording first before we celebrate. :P

[Seatherny]

I think we should wait to see the actual wording first before we celebrate. :P

celebrate?
Nothing to celebrate about tbh. Not like every Asian / Black will run to become members.

[Adamm]

celebrate?
Nothing to celebrate about tbh. Not like every Asian / Black will run to become members.
In which case it's win/win for the BNP is it not?

[Seatherny]

In which case it's win/win for the BNP is it not?

No as they don't want any blacks / asians but I am guessing some will join. But BNP wont be happy.

[Jamesy]

celebrate?
Nothing to celebrate about tbh. Not like every Asian / Black will run to become members.

The ones that do will probably be pretty damn uncomfortable :P

[DJ-Ains.T]

THE BNP PARTY IS STUPID. They are BRITISH only, and I can bet that asians NOT from britain join. They've only allowed it so they can get bigger. It's a stupid party anyway, and I hope it doesn't take charge.

[Mathew]

Doesn't this totally just defeat the whole object of the BNP..?
I'm sure undertaker will have something to say about this! :)

[DJ-Ains.T]

Doesn't this totally just defeat the whole object of the BNP..?
I'm sure undertaker will have something to say about this! :)

It might do, if non-british asians join.

[Seatherny]

Doesn't this totally just defeat the whole object of the BNP..?
I'm sure undertaker will have something to say about this! :)

I guess they did it voluntarily as it looks better than having the court force them to.

[Jordy]

THE BNP PARTY IS STUPID. They are BRITISH only, and I can bet that asians NOT from britain join. They've only allowed it so they can get bigger. It's a stupid party anyway, and I hope it doesn't take charge.They did it because they've been forced to by the courts.

I don't really see how it matters either way, obviously the BNP hasn't changed, no one is saying they have, they've just changed it so they can exist which is fair enough. Non-whites aren't going to join the part regardless so what does it matter?

[Sammeth.]

If I wasn't white I would join just to annoy them. Irl troll.

[-:Undertaker:-]

Doesn't this totally just defeat the whole object of the BNP..?
I'm sure undertaker will have something to say about this! :)

Indeed.

While I do not agree with membership of something or somebody being considered job/role based on their sexuality, race or any other factor, I find this stinks of hypocrisy from the ruling elite and futher deepens support for the British National Party. Labour spent taxpayer money according to Nick Griffin on a team of lawyers to chase this issue down and Nick Griffin has yet again averted their attempts and i'm glad of that.

..and why does it stink of hypocrisy?

Because the Conservatives have black-only/women-only candidate shortlists in force and so does the Labour Party. Not to mention the legislation the Labour Party has brought in over the past decade which places people based on their minority background in a job/position rather than based on their qualifications. It was also recently revealed that the Labour Party purposely engineered the social/racial makeup of this country on purpose to try and basically get under the skin of the right-wing in this country and to support Labour voting strategy.

One rule for the ruling elite, another for the BNP and anyone who has a view that doesn't tow the offical line which was only proven a few years back when 'cast-iron' Dave called UKIP racist, despite the fact UKIP do not even have any policies based on race unlike the two ruling parties and the BNP. I'm suprised here why Labour supporters on this forum and Conservative supporters also aren't calling for their parties to re-consider their actions because if the BNP are racist, then the Labour Party and the Tories are sure as hell as equally racist.

As for me, i'll continue to support UKIP because I find them the decent party out of the whole lot of them who actually want a Britain based on what you have done, not who you are - to hell with the rest of the hypocritical crooks.

[Tash.]

Indeed.

While I do not agree with membership of something or somebody being considered job/role based on their sexuality, race or any other factor, I find this stinks of hypocrisy from the ruling elite and futher deepens support for the British National Party. Labour spent taxpayer money according to Nick Griffin on a team of lawyers to chase this issue down and Nick Griffin has yet again averted their attempts and i'm glad of that.

..and why does it stink of hypocrisy?

Because the Conservatives have black-only/women-only candidate shortlists in force and so does the Labour Party. Not to mention the legislation the Labour Party has brought in over the past decade which places people based on their minority background in a job/position rather than based on their qualifications. It was also recently revealed that the Labour Party purposely engineered the social/racial makeup of this country on purpose to try and basically get under the skin of the right-wing in this country and to support Labour voting strategy.

One rule for the ruling elite, another for the BNP and anyone who has a view that doesn't tow the offical line which was only proven a few years back when 'cast-iron' Dave called UKIP racist, despite the fact UKIP do not even have any policies based on race unlike the two ruling parties and the BNP. I'm suprised here why Labour supporters on this forum and Conservative supporters also aren't calling for their parties to re-consider their actions because if the BNP are racist, then the Labour Party and the Tories are sure as hell as equally racist.

As for me, i'll continue to support UKIP because I find them the decent party out of the whole lot of them who actually want a Britain based on what you have done, not who you are - to hell with the rest of the hypocritical crooks.

Maybe because it's late, or maybe because i'm just dense and don't get this.. i'll let you decide, but what?

How are Labour and the Conservatives both as racist as the BNP? They do not say that a member of a certain race cannot become a member of their party which is what the BNP had in their rules. So please, enlighten me, how are Labour and the Conservatives racist on those same terms? Can't wait to hear this..

[-:Undertaker:-]

Maybe because it's late, or maybe because i'm just dense and don't get this.. i'll let you decide, but what?

How are Labour and the Conservatives both as racist as the BNP? They do not say that a member of a certain race cannot become a member of their party which is what the BNP had in their rules. So please, enlighten me, how are Labour and the Conservatives racist on those same terms? Can't wait to hear this..

I just said then; they both have the policy that some short-list candidates for potential seats have to be black/asian/gay/women which is were the recent outcry from Tory grassroots has come from because the whole idea behind Conservatism is that you get a job based on how you fight for it (aka your qualifications) and not who you are.

So while you wish to dish everything off that the BNP does as racist (despite the fact none of these policies are actually genuine racism from Lab/Con/BNP because racism is hatred of a race) you'd best be taking a look at the discrimatory policies of Labour and the Conservatives who are the actual crooks, or racists in your logic, in power.

For example, I have often heard the Labour MP Diane Abbott call the British National Party, yet she has apparently called for all-black candidate shortlists for the last 20 years. Is she also racist?

[Black_Apalachi]

Even if I was a fan beforehand (which I wasn't), all I see now is a party that has walked all over its own ideologies to fit in and look less monstrous. Not exactly what I look for in a party I must say

[Tash.]

I just said then; they both have the policy that some short-list candidates for potential seats have to be black/asian/gay/women which is were the recent outcry from Tory grassroots has come from because the whole idea behind Conservatism is that you get a job based on how you fight for it (aka your qualifications) and not who you are.

So while you wish to dish everything off that the BNP does as racist (despite the fact none of these policies are actually genuine racism from Lab/Con/BNP because racism is hatred of a race) you'd best be taking a look at the discrimatory policies of Labour and the Conservatives who are the actual crooks, or racists in your logic, in power.

For example, I have often heard the Labour MP Diane Abbott call the British National Party, yet she has apparently called for all-black candidate shortlists for the last 20 years. Is she also racist?

I read what you wrote, I just disagree. What you're explaining there is clearly wrong, nobody should get a job just because they are part of a minority. But the Labour Party and the Conservatives are not excluding people. The BNP were/technically still are. They were doing this based on the colour of a persons skin, which is generally accepted as being racist. You can disagree if you like, I don't mind, but it is racism however you look at it.

No she isn't racist, she's just not very bright. I see the morals behind what she wants, she wants to make things more equal in government so that everyone is potentially represented. Unfortunately doing this isn't going to achieve that and actually makes people like you angry, and rightly so.

[-:Undertaker:-]

I read what you wrote, I just disagree. What you're explaining there is clearly wrong, nobody should get a job just because they are part of a minority. But the Labour Party and the Conservatives are not excluding people. The BNP were/technically still are. They were doing this based on the colour of a persons skin, which is generally accepted as being racist. You can disagree if you like, I don't mind, but it is racism however you look at it.

No she isn't racist, she's just not very bright. I see the morals behind what she wants, she wants to make things more equal in government so that everyone is potentially represented. Unfortunately doing this isn't going to achieve that and actually makes people like you angry, and rightly so.

And you wonder why the BNP gather support?

You support it one way, but not the other way - I find that hypocritical and quite disgusting because I hate the notion that anyone can be chosen for a job based on their race, disability, sexuality or any other factor related. The Labour Party and the Conservative Party by having all women/all black shortlists are excluding people, because the people who are excluded are not women/black/gay. Therefore their policies are racist under your own logic.

Oh so shes not racist because shes a member of the Labour Party you are basically telling me, so its bad, bad, wrong, wrong, racist, racist for Nick Griffin & the BNP to have a policy based on race, but for Diane Abbott to demand all-black shortlists thats just 'not very bright'.

It is your type of view that turns people to extremism, it is a great shame. It really is.

[Tash.]

And you wonder why the BNP gather support?

You support it one way, but not the other way - I find that hypocritical and quite disgusting because I hate the notion that anyone can be chosen for a job based on their race, disability, sexuality or any other factor related. The Labour Party and the Conservative Party by having all women/all black shortlists are excluding people, because the people who are excluded are not women/black/gay. Therefore their policies are racist under your own logic.

Oh so shes not racist because shes a member of the Labour Party you are basically telling me, so its bad, bad, wrong, wrong, racist, racist for Nick Griffin & the BNP to have a policy based on race, but for Diane Abbott to demand all-black shortlists thats just 'not very bright'.

It is your type of view that turns people to extremism, it is a great shame. It really is.

I really love how you twist what I wrote. If you actually bothered to get off your high horse and read what I wrote I was agreeing with you. I don't think that any political party should be recruiting people based on their gender, age, race, colour etc. I did say that was wrong and stupid. What I meant was, and I think you know this but chose to try and make me look hypocritical, they are not saying "oh you're white, you can't join". In fact if they did say that there would be absolute uproar. Yet for some reason the BNP have gotten away with it for years. Finally, something has been done about it.

I fail to see how my view on anything turns people to extremism, you know relatively little on my views so lets not get into this argument again please :) If you want to however, I have a few choice assumptions I could attach to your views.

[-:Undertaker:-]

I really love how you twist what I wrote. If you actually bothered to get off your high horse and read what I wrote I was agreeing with you. I don't think that any political party should be recruiting people based on their gender, age, race, colour etc. I did say that was wrong and stupid. What I meant was, and I think you know this but chose to try and make me look hypocritical, they are not saying "oh you're white, you can't join". In fact if they did say that there would be absolute uproar. Yet for some reason the BNP have gotten away with it for years. Finally, something has been done about it.

I fail to see how my view on anything turns people to extremism, you know relatively little on my views so lets not get into this argument again please :) If you want to however, I have a few choice assumptions I could attach to your views.

I have pointed out how your points have been hypocritical and how your opinion on this is conflicting with itself; you tried to make an excuse for the Tory/Labour Party by saying "But the Labour Party and the Conservatives are not excluding people. The BNP were/technically still are. They were doing this based on the colour of a persons skin, which is generally accepted as being racist. You can disagree if you like, I don't mind, but it is racism however you look at it." and then futher went on to say "No she isn't racist, she's just not very bright." - I wonder if you'd make the same exception for the BNP & Nick Griffin who you have labelled as racist in this discussion yet it seems that when the Conservative Party & Labour Party have racial rules then its pretty well fine.


How are Labour and the Conservatives both as racist as the BNP?So do you not accept that either this rule that the BNP had was not racist, or do you still stand by the fact that the BNP are racist by having this rule (but that would also mean you are agreeing with the fact the Labour & Conservative Party are also racist) - which is it?

Also I didn't twist anything, you tried to slide away from the points I brought up and are hesitant in accusing the Labour & Conservative Parties of any real wrongdoing whereas you pounced on the BNP in this thread over their racial membership rule. Afterall, you did say when you opened your first line "I read what you wrote, I just disagree." - showing that you don't really agree with me, you still disagree and it was only when I went futher on and pushed and pushed that you finally did a U-turn and said "If you actually bothered to get off your high horse and read what I wrote I was agreeing with you."

On extremism and the issue at large, it is your exact opinion of 'one rule for the BNP and another for Labour/Conservatives' that turns people towards the extremist BNP and until you fight these flaws, then they will continue to gather support from disaffected people who look at what you are saying and just think "we can see the hypocrisy in the ruling elite (Lib/Lab/Con) - maybe what the BNP are saying is true afterall".

[Seatherny]

Indeed.

While I do not agree with membership of something or somebody being considered job/role based on their sexuality, race or any other factor, I find this stinks of hypocrisy from the ruling elite and futher deepens support for the British National Party. Labour spent taxpayer money according to Nick Griffin on a team of lawyers to chase this issue down and Nick Griffin has yet again averted their attempts and i'm glad of that.

..and why does it stink of hypocrisy?

Because the Conservatives have black-only/women-only candidate shortlists in force and so does the Labour Party. Not to mention the legislation the Labour Party has brought in over the past decade which places people based on their minority background in a job/position rather than based on their qualifications. It was also recently revealed that the Labour Party purposely engineered the social/racial makeup of this country on purpose to try and basically get under the skin of the right-wing in this country and to support Labour voting strategy.

One rule for the ruling elite, another for the BNP and anyone who has a view that doesn't tow the offical line which was only proven a few years back when 'cast-iron' Dave called UKIP racist, despite the fact UKIP do not even have any policies based on race unlike the two ruling parties and the BNP. I'm suprised here why Labour supporters on this forum and Conservative supporters also aren't calling for their parties to re-consider their actions because if the BNP are racist, then the Labour Party and the Tories are sure as hell as equally racist.

As for me, i'll continue to support UKIP because I find them the decent party out of the whole lot of them who actually want a Britain based on what you have done, not who you are - to hell with the rest of the hypocritical crooks.

Let me get this straight. You would have flamed Labour if they didn't spend money trying to ensure racism doesn't take place on a political level, and when they do prevent racism, you flame them for wasting money.
Oh myyy! Labour can never do ANYTHING right in your eyes.
Now that's hypocrisy!


You support it one way, but not the other way - I find that hypocritical and quite disgusting because I hate the notion that anyone can be chosen for a job based on their race, disability, sexuality or any other factor related.

I thought UKIP wanted to prevent asians/blacks coming to this country for so many years and therefore prevent them from getting a job. This means that UK based companies cannot hire blacks/asians. That means you are contradicting yourself.
Now that's hypocrisy!

[-:Undertaker:-]

Let me get this straight. You would have flamed Labour if they didn't spend money trying to ensure racism doesn't take place on a political level, and when they do prevent racism, you flame them for wasting money.
Oh myyy! Labour can never do ANYTHING right in your eyes.
Now that's hypocrisy!Actually I wouldn't, because I dont support spending taxpayer money on something like this aka politically motivated court action against a political party, especially when the ruling party and its opposition also have 'racist' shortlist rules. So no, no hypocrisy from me at all!

Of course Labour can never do anything right, I wish they'd prove me wrong for the good of the country but the fact is they are just a bunch of crooked, shallow totally incompetant liers would I wouldn't trust if you paid me to - not to mention their stinking hypocrisy over this very issue which you seem determined to fly past and continue on about something totally not even related.


I thought UKIP wanted to prevent asians/blacks coming to this country for so many years and therefore prevent them from getting a job. This means that UK based companies cannot hire blacks/asians. That means you are contradicting yourself.
Now that's hypocrisy!Sorry but firstly UKIP is not me (-:undertaker:-) and secondly that isn't even UKIP policy so I have really no idea what on earth you are on about? :S - However I would like to know of your support now for the Labour Party concerning this issue as I have kindly and helpfully pointed out the hypocrisy of it all which you are desperately trying to divert by making it up as you go along. (as shown above).

So do you still support the BNP not being allowed a racial membership policy but continue to allow the Conservatives & Labour to have a racial candidate shortlist policy implemented?

I look forward to the answer. :)

[Seatherny]

Actually I wouldn't, because I dont support spending taxpayer money on something like this aka politically motivated court action against a political party, especially when the ruling party and its opposition also have 'racist' shortlist rules. So no, no hypocrisy from me at all!

Of course Labour can never do anything right, I wish they'd prove me wrong for the good of the country but the fact is they are just a bunch of crooked, shallow totally incompetant liers would I wouldn't trust if you paid me to - not to mention their stinking hypocrisy over this very issue which you seem determined to fly past and continue on about something totally not even related.

Sorry but firstly UKIP is not me (-:undertaker:-) and secondly that isn't even UKIP policy so I have really no idea what on earth you are on about? :S - However I would like to know of your support now for the Labour Party concerning this issue as I have kindly and helpfully pointed out the hypocrisy of it all which you are desperately trying to divert by making it up as you go along. (as shown above).

So do you still support the BNP not being allowed a racial membership policy but continue to allow the Conservatives & Labour to have a racial candidate shortlist policy implemented?

I look forward to the answer. :)

You said UKIP wanted to prevent immigration for 5 years or so. No point lying as I can find the post.

[-:Undertaker:-]

You said UKIP wanted to prevent immigration for 5 years or so. No point lying as I can find the post.

So when you said "I thought UKIP wanted to prevent asians/blacks coming to this country for so many years and therefore prevent them from getting a job. This means that UK based companies cannot hire blacks/asians. That means you are contradicting yourself." you now admit you were making it up to give it a racist edge and make it look as though I was contradicting myself, which I haven't been? - Indeed UKIP policy is to stop immigration for 5 years (you got it right there) with a blanket ban while we sort out the current mess but it is not how you worded it, where you said they would stop blacks and asians coming to this country and gaining employment - hence why i'm led to believe that you make it up as you go along.

Glad we got that out of the way, anywho you still haven't answered my question; So do you still support the BNP not being allowed a racial membership policy but continue to allow the Conservatives & Labour to have a racial candidate shortlist policy implemented?

[Seatherny]

So when you said "I thought UKIP wanted to prevent asians/blacks coming to this country for so many years and therefore prevent them from getting a job. This means that UK based companies cannot hire blacks/asians. That means you are contradicting yourself." you now admit you were making it up to give it a racist edge and make it look as though I was contradicting myself, which I haven't been? - Indeed UKIP policy is to stop immigration for 5 years (you got it right there) with a blanket ban while we sort out the current mess but it is not how you worded it, where you said they would stop blacks and asians coming to this country and gaining employment - hence why i'm led to believe that you make it up as you go along.

Glad we got that out of the way, anywho you still haven't answered my question; So do you still support the BNP not being allowed a racial membership policy but continue to allow the Conservatives & Labour to have a racial candidate shortlist policy implemented?

I am sorry, but:

No asians/black in this country for 5 years
is the same as:
I thought UKIP wanted to prevent asians/blacks coming to this country for so many years and therefore prevent them from getting a job. This means that UK based companies cannot hire blacks/asians. That means you are contradicting yourself.

If you don't allow asians/black for 5 years, it mans UK based companies cannot hire them - as in from different countries.

[dirrty]

if any non-white people joined, they'd be frowned upon within their community straight away.

[-:Undertaker:-]

I am sorry, but:

No asians/black in this country for 5 years
is the same as:
I thought UKIP wanted to prevent asians/blacks coming to this country for so many years and therefore prevent them from getting a job. This means that UK based companies cannot hire blacks/asians. That means you are contradicting yourself.

If you don't allow asians/black for 5 years, it mans UK based companies cannot hire them - as in from different countries.

No that is not the same, UKIP policy is to stop immigration with a blanket ban (that includes whatever colour there is, whether your green, purple, white, red, black or all the colours of the rainbow). I shall explain the meaning of blanket ban because you seem determined to make it out as though UKIP have a racial immigration policy, which they do not. Anyway it means it covers everyone which means that unlike the BNP, Labour and the Conservatives they are not basing their policy on race, sexuality or disability.

I shall ask for the third time now; So do you still support the BNP not being allowed a racial membership policy but continue to allow the Conservatives & Labour to have a racial candidate shortlist policy implemented?

[ifuseekamy]

Oh my, I'm sure the non-whites are over the moon now they can join the BNP:rolleyes:

[Seatherny]

No that is not the same, UKIP policy is to stop immigration with a blanket ban (that includes whatever colour there is, whether your green, purple, white, red, black or all the colours of the rainbow). I shall explain the meaning of blanket ban because you seem determined to make it out as though UKIP have a racial immigration policy, which they do not. Anyway it means it covers everyone which means that unlike the BNP, Labour and the Conservatives they are not basing their policy on race, sexuality or disability.

I shall ask for the third time now; So do you still support the BNP not being allowed a racial membership policy but continue to allow the Conservatives & Labour to have a racial candidate shortlist policy implemented?

Ban all non-British. Same thing. I thought you "hate the notion that anyone can be chosen for a job based on their race, disability, sexuality or any other factor related. "

[-:Undertaker:-]

Ban all non-British. Same thing. I thought you "hate the notion that anyone can be chosen for a job based on their race, disability, sexuality or any other factor related. "

What has that got to do with employment? - nothing. Immigration is a seperate issue and that should not be decided on race either and UKIP are not proposing it be done on the grounds of race, the same with employment. When you plan to enter this country you are not coming for a job, you are coming here to live. The immigration proposal by UKIP states simply that a blanket ban on all immigration while the current mess is sorted out (because we do not know how many people are here) and after a 5-year period, introduce a system which allows only the best in based on their ability and record, not who they are.

Labour, the BNP and the Conservatives are all basing their candidate shortlist/membership rules based on who you are, your race, your sexuality and your gender. UKIP are not basing their immigration policy on race, gender or sexuality - a very clear difference and I think you can see that, but i'm glad you see this as winding me up because I know you know deep down now that what I am saying is right, and futhermore is proved by your refusal to answer my question which I have kindly reposted for a fourth time at to which I await your reply eagerly.

Again for the fourth time running now, I shall ask yet again; So do you still support the BNP not being allowed a racial membership policy but continue to allow the Conservatives & Labour to have a racial candidate shortlist policy implemented?

[Seatherny]

What has that got to do with employment? - nothing. Immigration is a seperate issue and that should not be decided on race either and UKIP are not proposing it be done on the grounds of race, the same with employment. When you plan to enter this country you are not coming for a job, you are coming here to live. The immigration proposal by UKIP states simply that a blanket ban on all immigration while the current mess is sorted out (because we do not know how many people are here) and after a 5-year period, introduce a system which allows only the best in based on their ability and record, not who they are.

Labour, the BNP and the Conservatives are all basing their candidate shortlist/membership rules based on who you are, your race, your sexuality and your gender. UKIP are not basing their immigration policy on race, gender or sexuality - a very clear difference and I think you can see that, but i'm glad you see this as winding me up because I know you know deep down now that what I am saying is right, and futhermore is proved by your refusal to answer my question which I have kindly reposted for a fourth time at to which I await your reply eagerly.

Again for the fourth time running now, I shall ask yet again; So do you still support the BNP not being allowed a racial membership policy but continue to allow the Conservatives & Labour to have a racial candidate shortlist policy implemented?

Stop presuming I agree with you to satisfy yourself. It really doesn't look good or clever. It actually makes the writer look childish.

Well if you block immigration, you are blocking them from being employed, meaning the companies have a limited choice - common sense really.

If UKIP cannot sort out "the mess" without blocking immigration, they are pretty inefficient and a poor political group. You can easily allow people in, keep a proper record and start vetting others.
What do you propose UKIP do by blocking immigration? Knock on every door in the country in the next 5 years and search for immigrants? Lol ... lets be realistic here. Wait a second, UKIP never are. Damn.

Anyway, even after the 5 years, people can still come in and out - there are obviously ways - so you can never know who is in the country. Its a dream situation, not a realistic one. UKIP try to be a "dream" party for some, not a "realistic" one. I guess its pretty clear that.

[-:Undertaker:-]

Stop presuming I agree with you to satisfy yourself. It really doesn't look good or clever. It actually makes the writer look childish.

Well if you block immigration, you are blocking them from being employed, meaning the companies have a limited choice - common sense really.

If UKIP cannot sort out "the mess" without blocking immigration, they are pretty inefficient and a poor political group. You can easily allow people in, keep a proper record and start vetting others.
What do you propose UKIP do by blocking immigration? Knock on every door in the country in the next 5 years and search for immigrants? Lol ... lets be realistic here. Wait a second, UKIP never are. Damn.

Anyway, even after the 5 years, people can still come in and out - there are obviously ways - so you can never know who is in the country. Its a dream situation, not a realistic one. UKIP try to be a "dream" party for some, not a "realistic" one. I guess its pretty clear that.

So the point still stands, the UKIP immigration policy (whether you agree with it or not) is not based on race because it does not discriminate based on race; therefore you cannot accuse me of hypocrisy. I said I do not agree at all with the notion that people are chosen for employment or for emigration to this country based on their race and I still dont, and the party I support doesnt either. Its pretty simple and heres a chart to simplify it to an even greater extent;


http://www.iaza.com/work/100215C/simplechart8004668727-iaza.gif


So now UKIP aside because we have clearly establised they do not have racial policies for candidacy, membership or immigration i'd like to ask you for a fifth time to answer the question you keep avoiding and which is the question which is vital and central to this debate; So do you still support the BNP not being allowed a racial membership policy but continue to allow the Conservatives & Labour to have a racial candidate shortlist policy implemented?

[Seatherny]

So the point still stands, the UKIP immigration policy (whether you agree with it or not) is not based on race because it does not discriminate based on race; therefore you cannot accuse me of hypocrisy. I said I do not agree at all with the notion that people are chosen for employment or for emigration to this country based on their race and I still dont, and the party I support doesnt either. Its pretty simple and heres a chart to simplify it to an even greater extent;


http://www.iaza.com/work/100215C/simplechart8004668727-iaza.gif


So now UKIP aside because we have clearly establised they do not have racial policies for candidacy, membership or immigration i'd like to ask you for a fifth time to answer the question you keep avoiding and which is the question which is vital and central to this debate; So do you still support the BNP not being allowed a racial membership policy but continue to allow the Conservatives & Labour to have a racial candidate shortlist policy implemented?

Does it matter? You said "and any other factors" or something. So you are basically denying all non British people the chance. Hence my post still stands:
Well if you block immigration, you are blocking them from being employed, meaning the companies have a limited choice - common sense really.

If UKIP cannot sort out "the mess" without blocking immigration, they are pretty inefficient and a poor political group. You can easily allow people in, keep a proper record and start vetting others.
What do you propose UKIP do by blocking immigration? Knock on every door in the country in the next 5 years and search for immigrants? Lol ... lets be realistic here. Wait a second, UKIP never are. Damn.

Anyway, even after the 5 years, people can still come in and out - there are obviously ways - so you can never know who is in the country. Its a dream situation, not a realistic one. UKIP try to be a "dream" party for some, not a "realistic" one. I guess its pretty clear that.

[-:Undertaker:-]

Does it matter? You said "and any other factors" or something. So you are basically denying all non British people the chance. Hence my post still stands: Well if you block immigration, you are blocking them from being employed, meaning the companies have a limited choice - common sense really.

No it doesnt stand because the policy does not target a race/gender or sexuality when deciding on who/who doesnt come into the United Kingdom. Therefore there is no hypocrisy in me saying that jobs/membership shouldn't be decided on race, gender or sexuality because the policy I support doesnt work on the merits of race, gender and sexuality.


If UKIP cannot sort out "the mess" without blocking immigration, they are pretty inefficient and a poor political group. You can easily allow people in, keep a proper record and start vetting others.
What do you propose UKIP do by blocking immigration? Knock on every door in the country in the next 5 years and search for immigrants? Lol ... lets be realistic here. Wait a second, UKIP never are. Damn.

Anyway, even after the 5 years, people can still come in and out - there are obviously ways - so you can never know who is in the country. Its a dream situation, not a realistic one. UKIP try to be a "dream" party for some, not a "realistic" one. I guess its pretty clear that.

It is estimated that over a million people (and figures range over that) are living in the United Kingdom who we do not know of, do you know how serious that is? - that means they are not paying tax but are using services, thus putting immense strain on public services and the economy in general. Ontop of that the issue of crime is very big when you do not even know whether the criminal is here or not.

How would they sort it? - pretty simple really, by using intelligence and by cutting any benefits & services to those who do not register as legally in this country. The current policy is unsustainable and unrealistic that this Labour government has ran. While I and UKIP would not wish to stop immigration, it would have to be cut for a period of 5 years (less if possible, depends on how long the planning would take and how long the legal framework & legislation took to be introduced) while a new system was introduced which only allows those in who we need and want and prevents the system being cheated like it is now.

UKIP aside because you'll never agree anyway and it just ends up a merry-go-round, for the sixth time now I will ask; So do you still support the BNP not being allowed a racial membership policy but continue to allow the Conservatives & Labour to have a racial candidate shortlist policy implemented?

[Seatherny]

No it doesnt stand because the policy does not target a race/gender or sexuality when deciding on who/who doesnt come into the United Kingdom. Therefore there is no hypocrisy in me saying that jobs/membership shouldn't be decided on race, gender or sexuality because the policy I support doesnt work on the merits of race, gender and sexuality.



It is estimated that over a million people (and figures range over that) are living in the United Kingdom who we do not know of, do you know how serious that is? - that means they are not paying tax but are using services, thus putting immense strain on public services and the economy in general. Ontop of that the issue of crime is very big when you do not even know whether the criminal is here or not.

How would they sort it? - pretty simple really, by using intelligence and by cutting any benefits & services to those who do not register as legally in this country. The current policy is unsustainable and unrealistic that this Labour government has ran. While I and UKIP would not wish to stop immigration, it would have to be cut for a period of 5 years (less if possible, depends on how long the planning would take and how long the legal framework & legislation took to be introduced) while a new system was introduced which only allows those in who we need and want and prevents the system being cheated like it is now.

UKIP aside because you'll never agree anyway and it just ends up a merry-go-round, for the sixth time now I will ask; So do you still support the BNP not being allowed a racial membership policy but continue to allow the Conservatives & Labour to have a racial candidate shortlist policy implemented?

So you completely ignore the last part of your original post?
I hate the notion that anyone can be chosen for a job based on their race, disability, sexuality or any other factor related.
That means your first paragraph is flawed.

A million people? Wow, find me the source please.
Anyway, please explain to me clearly how in the 5 years you wish to locate all these people? And prevent them entering in the future?

[-:Undertaker:-]

So you completely ignore the last part of your original post?
I hate the notion that anyone can be chosen for a job based on their race, disability, sexuality or any other factor related.
That means your first paragraph is flawed.

A million people? Wow, find me the source please.
Anyway, please explain to me clearly how in the 5 years you wish to locate all these people? And prevent them entering in the future?

Yes you should not be chosen for a job based on how wealthy you are, your sexuality, gender or race but you should be judged on how good you are/what you will contribute to the company.

You should not be decided on whether your right to enter a country based on how wealthy you are, your sexuality, gender or racebut you should be judged how how good you are/what you will contribute to the country.

Here is your source you requested; http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/6424377.stm - although bear in mind it could be more or less than them sources provided state, but it is more likely to be more than those figures suggest, as that was back in 2007 and the fact they they are illegally here and we do not know they are here makes it very difficult to make an educated guess.

So no, I haven't ignored the last part of my post because its just as relevent now as it was back then. Talking of ignoring, i'll now ask for the seventh time for you to answer my question; So do you still support the BNP not being allowed a racial membership policy but continue to allow the Conservatives & Labour to have a racial candidate shortlist policy implemented?

[Seatherny]

Yes you should not be chosen for a job based on how wealthy you are, your sexuality, gender or race but you should be judged on how good you are/what you will contribute to the company.

You should not be decided on whether your right to enter a country based on how wealthy you are, your sexuality, gender or racebut you should be judged how how good you are/what you will contribute to the country.

Here is your source you requested; http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/6424377.stm - although bear in mind it could be more or less than them sources provided state, but it is more likely to be more than those figures suggest, as that was back in 2007 and the fact they they are illegally here and we do not know they are here makes it very difficult to make an educated guess.

So no, I haven't ignored the last part of my post because its just as relevent now as it was back then. Talking of ignoring, i'll now ask for the seventh time for you to answer my question; So do you still support the BNP not being allowed a racial membership policy but continue to allow the Conservatives & Labour to have a racial candidate shortlist policy implemented?


You were proudly saying that "over a million people live in the UK that we do not know of".
However this is what your source states:

Estimates vary widely as to how many illegal immigrants are living in the UK. The Home Office ran into trouble last year when it said it had no idea, but later produced an estimate of up to 570,000.

Pressure group Migration Watch puts the figure at between 515,000 and 870,000.

Exaggeration much?

Once more:
Anyway, please explain to me clearly how in the 5 years you wish to locate all these people? And prevent them entering in the future?


Yes you should not be chosen for a job based on how wealthy you are, your sexuality, gender or race but you should be judged on how good you are/what you will contribute to the company.

You should not be decided on whether your right to enter a country based on how wealthy you are, your sexuality, gender or racebut you should be judged how how good you are/what you will contribute to the country.


You said you want to stop people coming in the country for 5 years. Full stop.
Then you say you find it unfair that people shouldn't get a job for "any other factor".
Blatant contradiction.

[-:Undertaker:-]

You were proudly saying that "over a million people live in the UK that we do not know of".
However this is what your source states:

Exaggeration much?

Once more:
Anyway, please explain to me clearly how in the 5 years you wish to locate all these people? And prevent them entering in the future?

Not really, because as I said these figures are old from 2007 before and are very untrustworthy anyway from government, as government will often only include certain sectors (such as excluding missing visa people). On placing these people, well the system that would be designed over the first years by the government would be made foolproof, so if they did wish to try and enter the United Kingdom again and legally this time, they would have to go through the proper procedures which would assess them on whether or not they would be an asset or a drain to this country - just like Austrialia and most other countries do.

They would be deported back to their home countries where their government would be in control of settlement duties. Futhermore I have already covered on how we would locate these people and of course we would not locate all of them, but most likely they would be forced to turn themselves in because any government help they were recieving would be cut.

For the eighth time now, please do answer my question as the debate was supposed to be about the BNP/Lab/Con and not UKIP; So do you still support the BNP not being allowed a racial membership policy but continue to allow the Conservatives & Labour to have a racial candidate shortlist policy implemented?


You said you want to stop people coming in the country for 5 years. Full stop. Then you say you find it unfair that people shouldn't get a job for "any other factor".
Blatant contradiction. Any other factor means based on wealth, gender, sexuality, circumstances, family life, lifestyle, race and so on. As I have said time and time again, a blanket ban on immigration for a temporary 5-year period would not stop people entering the country based on their race, gender, sexuality and so on - it would be a blanket ban. A blanket ban cannot be unfair to anyone of a differing race, gender or sexuality because its what it is on the tin, a blanket ban meaning it covers everyone.

I referred to any other factor when I was speaking about jobs and qualifications, not immigration and the UKIP immigration policy.

[Seatherny]

Not really, because as I said these figures are old from 2007 before and are very untrustworthy anyway from government, as government will often only include certain sectors (such as excluding missing visa people). On placing these people, well the system that would be designed over the first years by the government would be made foolproof, so if they did wish to try and enter the United Kingdom again and legally this time, they would have to go through the proper procedures which would assess them on whether or not they would be an asset or a drain to this country - just like Austrialia and most other countries do.

They would be deported back to their home countries where their government would be in control of settlement duties. Futhermore I have already covered on how we would locate these people and of course we would not locate all of them, but most likely they would be forced to turn themselves in because any government help they were recieving would be cut.

For the eighth time now, please do answer my question as the debate was supposed to be about the BNP/Lab/Con and not UKIP; So do you still support the BNP not being allowed a racial membership policy but continue to allow the Conservatives & Labour to have a racial candidate shortlist policy implemented?

Any other factor means based on wealth, gender, sexuality, circumstances, family life, lifestyle, race and so on. As I have said time and time again, a blanket ban on immigration for a temporary 5-year period would not stop people entering the country based on their race, gender, sexuality and so on - it would be a blanket ban. A blanket ban cannot be unfair to anyone of a differing race, gender or sexuality because its what it is on the tin, a blanket ban meaning it covers everyone.

I referred to any other factor when I was speaking about jobs and qualifications, not immigration and the UKIP immigration policy.

Turn themselves in? Lol they won't. Obviously the Govement has the people in the database hence they are receiving benefits. :S
And so you dont trust the source, but you still want to quite it? Thats hypocrisy. :rolleyes:
The figure could have gone down, but you still say "over a million" with no proof. You are making your posts seem less reliable by the minute...

And stop making excuses about the blanket ban. I have clearly shown you are contradicting yourself.

[-:Undertaker:-]

Turn themselves in? Lol they won't. Obviously the Govement has the people in the database hence they are receiving benefits. :S
And so you dont trust the source, but you still want to quite it? Thats hypocrisy. :rolleyes:
The figure could have gone down, but you still say "over a million" with no proof. You are making your posts seem less reliable by the minute...

They would when their illegal employment is taken away/any benefits they are recieving from the state. On the government in the benefits database, kind of and kind of not. The databases of the government are very expansive and can be duped by these people who can give false addresses, false ID and fake names and still claim (we have some of our own, they are called benefit cheats).

Well put it this way, if the Labour government says something is one then its most likely two - as shown by employment figures which do not include people on disability, where from what I read the figure of unemployed apparently hits the 8 million mark from the 3 million mark (again, what I have read in the past).

The figure gone down? - have the government done a big crackdown, wow - well I must of missed it despite being an avid follower of politics!!. Lets not be silly here; another report put it at close to a million also; http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1160642/Number-illegal-immigrants-Britain-nearing-1million.html - so as I said previously, figures range but the estimates are around the one million mark.

For the ninth time I will ask again (why are you refusing to reply to it?); So do you still support the BNP not being allowed a racial membership policy but continue to allow the Conservatives & Labour to have a racial candidate shortlist policy implemented?

[Seatherny]

Daily Mail? ROFL. I wont class that as a source. Still not over a million.

[-:Undertaker:-]

Daily Mail? ROFL. I wont class that as a source. Still not over a million.

The source within, the Mail is a news outlet and therefore is reporting a source and not providing a source which is from the London School of Economics. Therefore what I said is right, the figure is an estimated rough one million but we'll never know the real number obviously. One million, give or take a 100,000 or two. I'm glad we have now finally established there is a problem and a way to go about it.

For the tenth time anyway back to the real topic and I think its rather important you answer as you have been one of the most critical people of the BNP who supports Labour, so a reply would be in order I think; So do you still support the BNP not being allowed a racial membership policy but continue to allow the Conservatives & Labour to have a racial candidate shortlist policy implemented?

[Seatherny]

The source within, the Mail is a news outlet and therefore is reporting a source and not providing a source which is from the London School of Economics. Therefore what I said is right, the figure is an estimated rough one million but we'll never know the real number obviously. One million, give or take a 100,000 or two. I'm glad we have now finally established there is a problem and a way to go about it.

For the tenth time anyway back to the real topic and I think its rather important you answer as you have been one of the most critical people of the BNP who supports Labour, so a reply would be in order I think; So do you still support the BNP not being allowed a racial membership policy but continue to allow the Conservatives & Labour to have a racial candidate shortlist policy implemented?

Again, I will quote my post again:
Stop presuming I agree with you to satisfy yourself. It really doesn't look good or clever. It actually makes the writer look childish.

I just wish you would read my posts properly.
Anyway I honestly cant be bothered repeating myself over and over as I don't have tomorrow off unlike someone, so I am tired and need to go to bed.
Good Night.
Daily Mail ... rofl seriously. :rolleyes:

[-:Undertaker:-]

Again, I will quote my post again:
Stop presuming I agree with you to satisfy yourself. It really doesn't look good or clever. It actually makes the writer look childish.

I just wish you would read my posts properly.
Anyway I honestly cant be bothered repeating myself over and over as I don't have tomorrow off unlike someone, so I am tired and need to go to bed.
Good Night.
Daily Mail ... rofl seriously. :rolleyes:

You obviously do because you have slowly but surely accepted what I made about the UKIP points to your points and do not seem to have a counter-argument for them and instead continue to dispute data which I myself have stated is very shaky data due to the lack of evidence on numbers, that would suggest you actually now agree with me on the points that I have made and are only holding out on the data source as something to cling onto whats left of the discussion you intitated about UKIP.

On the Daily Mail, you just ignored the points I made (again) about the source within. The source is not the Daily Mail as the Daily Mail did not provide these figures, granted if the Daily Mail had provided the figures rather than the London School of Economics then yes, it would be a pretty unreliable source. So now we have established the figure is estimated to of risen (as I said originally from 2007 to 2010 [present]).

I am going to ask for the eleventh time;- because if i'm not reading your posts properly then something is seriously up with you because you continue to duck my question which I have highlighted in eleven posts since we started this discussion, here it is yet again; So do you still support the BNP not being allowed a racial membership policy but continue to allow the Conservatives & Labour to have a racial candidate shortlist policy implemented?

[Seatherny]

No LOL. You are being pathethic by pretending, hoping, praying I also agree with you and that party called UKIP. Thats all you do, patronise people considering I have told you THREE times to stop it. I guess it gives a good picture of the UKIP. That is probably why they arent in power ... makes sense to me.

Right, let me be you.
I am glad we agree that you admit you contradicted yourself and made a fool of yourself as first you say you dont want to let anyone in the country for 5 years. Then you say you find it disgusting that people's ethics, race and all other factors should be considered for a job. Already you have contradicted yourself here.
Finally we have agreed on something! Gosh! Took a while but it takes time for some people, its ok :).
Oh and then you go and say you will expect the illegal immigrants to turn themselves over. I mean, lets be realistic here. Oh wait, glad we agree UKIP never are.

Last night, sierk told me he is giving away Habbox to SkaterChu. The information comes direct from the Habbox Offices in Hong Kong!
Go find me where the LSE have stated the figures. I dont even bother wasting my time reading the Daily Mail. Hardly anyone in this country takes them seriously, and rightly so.

I havent answered your question as I havent read those posts regarding the Labour and racial candidate. I will read up on it and happily reply by midnight, so you can stop using the "I am going to ask you for the...". Frustrating isnt it? You do it to everyone when you realise you are wrong.

Man, thats 8 times I remember you having contradicted yourself in the last few months.

[-:Undertaker:-]

No LOL. You are being pathethic by pretending, hoping, praying I also agree with you and that party called UKIP. Thats all you do, patronise people considering I have told you THREE times to stop it. I guess it gives a good picture of the UKIP. That is probably why they arent in power ... makes sense to me.I answered all your questions on UKIPs immigration policy yet you seem to have no reply to them, either you agree or you are stuck for words to reply with.


Right, let me be you.
I am glad we agree that you admit you contradicted yourself and made a fool of yourself as first you say you dont want to let anyone in the country for 5 years. Then you say you find it disgusting that people's ethics, race and all other factors should be considered for a job. Already you have contradicted yourself here.
Finally we have agreed on something! Gosh! Took a while but it takes time for some people, its ok :).Yes, and a blanket ban isnt 'other factors' because it doesnt take peoples factors such as lifestyle, wealth, race and so forth into account when they would be trying to enter this country because there would be a blanket ban, henceforth it wouldnt be discrimitory because it would be a blanket ban. If my school is full and i'm the headteacher and I say to no matter who else applies to come to my school "sorry my school is full but you can apply next year" - how is that hypocritcal to me saying that jobs/entry to this country should not be based on who you are but what you have done? - it isnt.


Oh and then you go and say you will expect the illegal immigrants to turn themselves over. I mean, lets be realistic here. Oh wait, glad we agree UKIP never are.I've already explained that, but yet again you go right past it. If their employment and benefits are cut then they will turn themselves in because they will not have any food, accomedation or money - its a very very simple idea and it would work, they would have no other option. Why did you ignore this and put this point across again?


Last night, sierk told me he is giving away Habbox to SkaterChu. The information comes direct from the Habbox Offices in Hong Kong!
Go find me where the LSE have stated the figures. I dont even bother wasting my time reading the Daily Mail. Hardly anyone in this country takes them seriously, and rightly so.Is that why the Daily Mail is the second most read paper in the country?

The London School of Economics has stated the estimated guess of how many people are illegally in this country, which again I have shown ties in what what I said; around the one million mark. So whether its 100,000 illegal immigrations as you might choose to think, 300,000 or 1,100,000 there is a problem and UKIP have offered a solution to it.

The London School of Economics could be totally wrong for all I know, the figures could be 1.5 million - again as I said, the problem needs sorting to it doesnt get bigger and far worse. It puts enormous strain on our country.


I havent answered your question as I havent read those posts regarding the Labour and racial candidate. I will read up on it and happily reply by midnight, so you can stop using the "I am going to ask you for the...". Frustrating isnt it? You do it to everyone when you realise you are wrong.

Man, thats 8 times I remember you having contradicted yourself in the last few months.Thank you for finally agreeing to reply, and you obviously did read my posts with Tash otherwise you wouldn't have called me a hypocrite - or is it the actual case that you dont read my posts and just start a rant about UKIP whenever you wish?

[Japan]

A non-white joining the BNP is like making a chicken lie down next to a fox.